Piercings are some of the most common body modifications out there.
We don’t think twice about someone getting their ears pierced to be able to wear some earrings or studs, and we certainly don’t look twice when we see someone wearing said jewelry either.
In fact, it is encouraged in some families to have the baby’s ears pierced at several months old.
This is in accordance with the urban myth that it hurts less for young children as their earlobes are softer.
Wikimedia Commons
However, the fact of the matter is, these piercings are still wounds, albeit self-inflicted ones.
The only reason we perform such body modifications without thinking twice about it is because humans have some of the fastest body healing and regeneration known to the animal kingdom.
We may have the saying “as healthy as a horse”, but really we make horses look like they are made of spun glass!
Regardless of the incredible speed at which we can recover from injuries, a piercing is still a wound.
And like all wounds, piercings can still be subject to the issues that plague physical recoveries.
This is something Suzie Nesbet and her 7-year-old daughter Lily had to experience the hard way.
Lily had recently gotten her ears pierced at Claire’s Accessories in the UK, at their Harlow, North London branch.
The mother and daughter duo had not anticipated any problems – Suzie had followed the instructions given to her to the letter.
She had waited three weeks and had cleaned her daughter’s ear with a cleaning fluid as directed.
When she tried to change Lily’s earrings, however, it would not budge.
After attempting to take out the earring multiple times, Suzie’s friend suggested that the back of Lily’s butterfly earring may have embedded itself underneath her daughter’s skin.
This was a situation Suzie had never anticipated due to the size of the earring’s back, but it seemed to be the case as the earring would not move forwards or backward at all.
In the end, both mother and daughter were forced to go to the hospital to remove it.
There, Lily was forced to go under local anesthetic, as the earring had embedded itself so deeply it necessitated the use of a scalpel to remove it.
Suzie would later tell local reporters that she had not been given enough information and direction by the accessories outlet, the most important information is that as a wound, the piercing should have been given 6 weeks to heal.
A spokesperson from Claire’s Accessories would later release a statement reassuring all that their equipment and procedures are designed and performed with the utmost hygiene standards in mind.
They would also stand by the three weeks instructions, claiming that with the use of the provided lotion this was all the time needed for a full recovery.
Regardless of the truth of the company’s statement, hopefully, more parents will take precaution and ensure the hygiene of their daughter’s piercings so that no more incidents like this may happen.
